Watkins v. Reynolds

• Decision Date: 07 October 1890
• Citation: 25 N.E. 322,123 N.Y. 211
• Parties: WATKINS v. REYNOLDS et al.
• Court: New York Court of Appeals Court of Appeals

123 N.Y. 211

25 N.E. 322

WATKINS

v.REYNOLDS et al.

Court of Appeals of New York.

Oct. 7, 1890.

Appeal from supreme court, general term, fourth department.

Action by Abbie G. Watkins against Henry J. Vrooman et al., to foreclose a lien on land. Judgment for plaintiff was affirmed at general term, and defendants Henry J. Vrooman, Eben C. Reynolds, and Helen E. Reynolds appeal. The facts will appear from the following opinion by Mr. Justice KENNEDY delivered in the supreme court, (5 N. Y. Supp. 172:)

‘William Miller died in 1843, the owner and in possession of certain real estate, a portion of which is that described in the complaint. He left a last will, which was afterwards proven before the surrogate of Oneida county, and the same was recorded in the office of the clerk of said county, as a will of real estate, on the 1st day of November, 1878. The following is the fifth clause in said will: ‘ Fifth. One equal, undivided third part of the said rest and residue of my estate, real and personal, I give, devise, and bequeath to my friend, William Broadwell, in trust, to pay the interest, rents, profits, and increase of whatever nature to my daughter, Eliza Ann, the wife of Adam Vrooman, to and for her sole use and benefit, discharged and free from all control of her present or any future husband; and I direct that the receipt of acquittance of said Eliza Ann shall be a sufficient voucher and discharge to the said Broadwell for the payment of any such interest, rents, profits, or increase; and upon the future trust that, upon the decease of the said Eliza Ann, the said William Broadwell shall and will convey and deliver the said estate, real and personal, and all the increase in his hands, to the right heirs then living of the said Eliza Ann,-which said conveyance, as well as that before mentioned, to be made by the said Ithaca Thompson, shall be in fee, with the proper words of perpetuity to vest an estate of inheritance.’ The lands described in the complaint form the above-mentioned trust-estate. Eliza Ann Vrooman, the beneficiary named, from the death of Miller down to her death, which occurred on the 22d day of June, 1879, was in the actual occupation of the land. She left her surviving the defendant Henry J. Vrooman and Helen Reynolds, her only heirs at law and next of kin. On the 17th of January, 1879, Henry J. Vrooman applied to the plaintiff for the loan by her the said Eliza Ann Vrooman of the sum of $1,000. He represented at the time that said Eliza was the owner of the premises, and the money was loaned. To secure this the said Eliza Ann executed and delivered to the plaintiff the mortgage set forth in the complaint, describing the lands constituting the trust-estate provided for in the above-mentioned clause in the deceased Miller's will. The interest was payable annually from January 1, 1879. The mortgage was recorded in the clerk's office in Oneida county on the 17th day of January, 1879. At the time the plaintiff lent the money and took the mortgage she did not know in whom the title vested, but supposed it to be in the mortgagor. The interest, becoming due January 1, 1880, was not paid. About that time the plaintiff learned that said mortgagor had no title to the premises mortgaged, but that the same became vested in said Henry Vrooman and Helen Reynolds upon her death. She thereupon applied to said Vrooman for additional security; and he, on the 15th day of March, 1880, as is found by the court, executed and delivered to her the following paper: ‘This agreement certifies that I, Henry Vrooman, of Trenton, New York, do covenant and agree to and with Mrs. Abbie G. Watkins, of Prospect, New York, that a certain mortgage for the sum of one thousand dollars, given about the first day of January, 1879, to the said Abbie G. Watkins, by Eliza A. Vrooman, and which said mortgage was a lien on the premises therein described, is good for the face thereof, with interest; and the same is hereby made, as against myself and my heirs, a lien on the said property in said mortgage described; and I further covenant and agree to pay the said sum of one thousand dollars and interest. [Signed] HENRY VROOMAN. [L. S.] March 15, 1880. Oneida County, ss.: On the 15th day of March, 1880, before me came Henry Vrooman, the person named in and described in the above paper, and acknowledged to me that he executed the same. A. E. JONES, Justice of the Peace.’ On March 18, 1880, this paper was recorded in the Oneida county clerk's office in the book of assignments and satisfactions. About July 30, 1880, the clerk copied said record into the book of mortgages, but not in its regular order.

‘The summons in this action was served on Vrooman about the 15th day of July, 1880. The defendants Reynolds were brought in as defendants, May 9, 1881. On the 19th day of July, 1880, Vrooman conveyed all his interest in said lands to the defendant Eben C. Reynolds, for the consideration of $3,000. This deed was recorded July 30, 1880. On the 29th day of March, 1881, the defendants Eben C. Reynolds and Helen E. Reynolds, his wife, conveyed the whole premises to one Theodore Johnson, for $6,539.50. The $3,000 Reynolds was to pay Vrooman for his half was adjusted as follows: He assumed a mortgage on the land to one Hodges for $1,165; a mortgage thereon to Spriggs & Matthews for $100; paid in cash $875; he was to pay to his wife and take up a note she held against the grantee Vrooman, dated April 14, 1876, for $400, amounting then to $520; one-half the funeral expenses, and a monument to Eliza Ann Vrooman, $100. He also agreed to pay to Mrs. Reynolds, his said wife, for the use of one-half of the farm, that and other debts sufficient in amount to make up the whole of the purchase price. The court finds that Eben C. Reynolds, before he paid any part of the $875 on Vrooman's debt, had actual notice of the plaintiff's mortgage, and of the above mentioned agreement. Nothing has been paid upon the plaintiff's mortgage. In her complaint the plaintiff asks relief upon several grounds: First, that the plaintiff's mortgage be adjudged a lien upon the premises described therein from the time of making the same and the said agreement of Henry Vrooman, and that the same be foreclosed; second, that all the right, title, and interest which said defendant, Henry Vrooman, had in said premises, on the 15th day of March, 1880, be sold, and the proceeds applied to pay the mortgage and costs; third, for a judgment against him for any deficiency; fourth, that Eben C. Reynolds be declared to have purchased of Vrooman subsequent to the mortgage and agreement, and that he acquired no title against the plaintiff by such purchase; fifth, that Vrooman be enjoined from receiving, and Reynolds from paying to him, and of the purchase money; sixth, for such other and further relief as may seem just and equitable.

‘On the trial it was claimed by the appellants that a money judgment could not be ordered in the case, because not claimed in the complaint. The evidence given upon the theory upon which the case was disposed of was sufficient to justify the granting of the relief awarded. It is a general rule in equity that the relief to be administered will be adapted to the exigencies of the case as they exist at the close of the trial. Spears v. Mayor, 87 N. Y. 359, 376;Benedict v. Benedict, 85 N. Y. 625;Day v. Town of New Lots, 107 N. Y. 154, 13 N. E. Rep. 915; Dawley v. Brown, 11 N. Y. St. Rep. 261.

‘The court, upon conflicting evidence, found that the defendant Henry J. Vrooman duly executed and delivered the agreement of March 15, 1880. We think this finding justified by proof. By this agreement, under seal and for sufficient consideration, the said Vrooman covenanted and agreed to pay the plaintiff $1,000 and interest, being the sum secured by said mortgage. No good reason can be suggested why this obligation was not incurred by him, and, the whole of the mortgage remaining unpaid, why the judgment against him for that sum, with interest, is not just and fully warranted by the evidence; or why, within the rule suggested as to the granting of relief in equity cases, it was not properly adjudged against him.

‘The case shows no judgment against the defendant Helen Reynolds. She has joined with her husband, Eben C. Reynolds, in the appeal. As to her the same should be dismissed. After this action was commenced the defendant Henry J. Vrooman sold and conveyed his interest in the real estate described in said mortgage to the defendant Eben C. Reynolds, by deed dated and recorded as before stated. The consideration for the deed was $3,000. The grantee assumed the payment of two mortgages, liens upon the lands, amounting to $1,265, and he paid the grantor in cash $875; and out of the balance of the purchase price he was to pay a note his wife held against the grantor, the amount of which was $520; also one-half of the funeral expenses and other obligations owing by Vrooman, amounting to $340, being the balance of the purchase price. For this sum, $860 of the purchase money, with interest, judgment was ordered against the appellant Eben C. Reynolds, upon the ground that by the before-mentioned agreement of Henry J. Vrooman with the plaintiff an equitable lien was created and attached to his interest in said real estate in behalf of the plaintiff, and as security for the payment of her said mortgage debt; that, the agreement to pay the debt and discharge the obligation of Vrooman by Reynolds not having been performed by him by making such payments before he had actual notice of the existence of said equitable lien, he was bound to account for that part of said purchase money, and to...